Illinois?
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:59 amCould someone tell me how Illinois made it to a BCS game at #13 with 3 losses? Mizzou deserved to go much more than this squad
Page 1 of 2
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:59 amPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:00 amYou can't have more than 2 teams from one conference in BCS bowls.
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:07 amThe BSC cartel isn't interested in doing what the customer wants (most deserving teams get to go to the best bowls) or in doing what is fair to teams. The BSC cartel does one thing ad that is maximizing profits for cartel members. Therefore, do not expect the best teams to make it to BSC games.
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:07 amBRStang wrote:You can't have more than 2 teams from one conference in BCS bowls.
they should have taken Mizzou over Kansas in the Orange Bowl, then. Hell, even Arizona State would have been better
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:08 amMissouri should have gotten in ahead of Kansas, not Illinois. Illinois took Arizona State's spot in a BCS bowl.
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:16 amThis is relevant to SMU football?
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:35 amPonySnob wrote:This is relevant to SMU football?
i apologize for wanting to talk about something other than the coach of the day
Re: Illinois?
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:01 amQuikSStang wrote:Could someone tell me how Illinois made it to a BCS game at #13 with 3 losses? Mizzou deserved to go much more than this squad
The team that didn't deserve one is Kansas. They have not beaten a team ranked in the top 40.
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:09 amwhats more messed up is that Mizzou beat Illinois at the beginning of the year...sucks for them
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:13 amright, in fact Mizzou beat both Illinois AND Kansas.... they got skrewed
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:14 amBecause the Rose Bowl puts tradition first. They were given the opportunity to preserve their relationship with the Big 10 and PAC 10 and they took it, rather than taking a better team from another conference.
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:15 amTacoPony wrote:right, in fact Mizzou beat both Illinois AND Kansas.... they got skrewed
Also keep in mind that even though they had 2 losses, they only lost to 1 team. I was surprised Kansas was chosen instead of them.
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:15 amMustangStealth wrote:Because the Rose Bowl puts tradition first. They were given the opportunity to preserve their relationship with the Big 10 and PAC 10 and they took it, rather than taking a better team from another conference.
Pac 10 officials were the reason the BCS changed the top 12 rule to top 16 because they didnt want any part of Hawaii playing in the Rose Bowl
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:47 pmJ.T.supporta wrote:MustangStealth wrote:Because the Rose Bowl puts tradition first. They were given the opportunity to preserve their relationship with the Big 10 and PAC 10 and they took it, rather than taking a better team from another conference.
Pac 10 officials were the reason the BCS changed the top 12 rule to top 16 because they didnt want any part of Hawaii playing in the Rose Bowl
What are you even talking about??
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:10 pmJ.T.supporta wrote:MustangStealth wrote:Because the Rose Bowl puts tradition first. They were given the opportunity to preserve their relationship with the Big 10 and PAC 10 and they took it, rather than taking a better team from another conference.
Pac 10 officials were the reason the BCS changed the top 12 rule to top 16 because they didnt want any part of Hawaii playing in the Rose Bowl
Never heard that one. I don't think the Pac-10 can change the entire BCS format at the last minute.